Key Characteristics of Co-produced Urban Agriculture Visions in Oslo

Abstract

In this education research-oriented chapter, we present the findings from student and stakeholder co-produced visions, hindering and supporting forces and proposed action steps for urban agriculture initiatives in Oslo, Norway. Students in agroecology conducted participatory visioning workshops with initiatives in 2018 and 2019 and wrote reports based on these workshops. In our analysis of these reports, we found that the key characteristics of the visions could be categorized in terms of social, nature, and governance. Collaboration, lack of funds and time and other initiative-specific forces were common challenges to achieving the vision. Strong political support and increased interest in urban agriculture emerged as forces supporting the future visions. The proposed actions could be grouped in the categories of ecology, food, education, organization, social and municipality. The insights of our research on urban agriculture in public space gave us new perspectives and translations and can inform new and innovative visions.

1 Introduction

Urban agriculture – defined here as “all the food production initiatives in and around urban areas” (Prove et al., 2018 p. 17) – plays an indisputable role in sustainable urban development and urban food systems (Halloran & Magid, 2013). However, due to widely accepted strategies of building compact cities, urban public space has become increasingly scarce and contested. Well-functioning processes are needed to decide what urban space should include and how to manage it. One such process is visioning, where the activity of creating a shared vision, “a desirable state in the future” (Wiek & Iwaniec, 2014), is essential to directing of concrete action steps. In this chapter we present results from an integrated research-education effort with students from an MSc Agroecology programme on urban agriculture initiatives. The context was Oslo, Norway, where the interest in urban agriculture is relatively new but growing. The focus was on co-production of visions and action plans in partnership with stakeholders.

Co-creation and public participation are necessary for a successful implementation of urban agriculture. Van der Jagt et al. (2017) conclude that for communal urban gardens “to achieve community buy-in and flourishing, ultimately we need an approach that enables local people to discover, nourish, adapt and co-create their own culture” (p. 273). In the case of requalification of vacant areas in Bologna, Italy, authors Gasperi et al. found that “the integration of the different stakeholders related to urban horticulture (e.g., citizens, agronomists, environmentalists, ecologists, sociologists and urban planners) would ensure a successful process for valuing vacant areas towards the regeneration of cities” (2016, p. 17).

Public participation in this context can be defined as “the practice of consulting and involving members of the public in the agenda-setting, decision-making, and policy-forming activities of organizations or institutions responsible for policy development” (Rowe & Frewer, 2004, p. 512). The participatory processes we dealt with here were mostly focused on members of the public, more specifically participants and relevant stakeholders in the urban agriculture initiatives. In this study, we chose to make the connection between public participation and action education. The students worked with real-life urban agriculture cases and facilitated participatory change processes. We define action learning as “learning through action and for action” (Lieblein et al., 2004). The Agroecology course and our research for this chapter were inspired by Lewin’s (1946) definition of action research as “research which will help the practitioner” (Lewin, 1946, p. 34), and his three-step model of change and force field theory (Burnes, 2020).

Urban agriculture can be practiced and defined in a variety of ways. As in the other chapters of this volume, we focus on the publicly accessible forms of food production that take place in public space. Following the typology from Chap. 6, we explored case studies of urban agriculture in the categories: (1) urban farm, (2) urban agriculture in central parks and (3) neighbourhood gardens.

The student action learning strategy had three major aims: (1) to facilitate student learning, (2) to facilitate positive change in the initiatives and (3) to generate new knowledge about urban agriculture initiatives for research purposes, or practical theory building, to use a framework coined by Peters and Wals (2013). The focus in this chapter is on (3) the product of the student work and the way it can be utilized in research. Our overall question is: What is the desired future state of urban agriculture in public spaces, and how can we get there? To help answer this, we ask the following sub-questions: What are the key characteristics of student and stakeholder co-produced visions for urban agriculture in Oslo? What are the supporting and hindering forces for reaching these visions? What action steps can be taken to reach the visions?

2 Context and Methods: Action Learning and Food System Education for Change

In this chapter we present the action learning, project-based work of master students in the MSc Agroecology programme at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU). The work was conducted as part of the semester-long-course “Agroecology: Action Learning in Farming and Food Systems” and was focused on urban agriculture cases in Oslo. In the Agroecology program, we focus on action learning to enable students to overcome the ‘knowing-doing’ gap (Pfeffer, 1998), through cultivation of their competences to work with complex situations and take informed, responsible action (Francis et al., 2013; Wiek & Kay, 2015). In agreement with UNESCO (2017), we believe these competences are needed to understand and work with sustainability challenges.

The students worked in groups of four or five and partnered with selected urban agriculture cases, where the aim was to take part in change-oriented activities. The project work design is inspired by Kolb (2014), who presents learning as a cyclical process. The students were asked to (1) describe the present situation, (2) identify themes and key issues, (3) explore the desired future and (4) generate action plans for how to improve the situation towards the desired future. For the first two tasks, we encouraged the students to use interviews, participant observation and data-structuring tools like rich pictures (from Soft Systems Methodology; see Checkland (2000, p. 22) and Picture 8.1) to get a rich overview of the present situation. For the third and fourth tasks, students organized an open meeting or a workshop with relevant stakeholders, where they facilitated the creation of a shared vision. Each student group adapted the workshop design to their context, but the basic structure was a three to four-hour workshop, inspired by Lieblein et al. (2001) and the work of Pool and Parker (2017), that contained (1) information about the student project, (2) a guided imagery (that includes a relaxation exercise), (3) individual time to write or visualize the vision, (4) each member share their vision with the group to develop a group vision, (5) each group share their vision in plenary, (6) all agree on a shared vision, (7) all look at hindering and supporting forces and (8) all decide on initial action steps for reaching the vision.

Picture 8.1

Example of a rich picture from the case study of Bydel Gamle Oslo

After the workshop, the student groups refined the action steps and prepared a report addressed to key stakeholders.¹ In the report, they described the critical elements of the current situation, the shared vision, the most relevant hindering and supporting forces and their proposed plan of action. Each year, the interdisciplinary Agroecology programme at NMBU admits around 20 students, of which about 75% are international. Students come from a variety of educational and professional backgrounds, which in 2018 and 2019 included, amongst other, development studies, plant science, agriculture, biology, business and management. When we formed the groups for the project work, the aim was to have diversity in terms of background, age, and gender.

In September 2018 and 2019, the teaching team² introduced the project work to the students. We established a collaboration with relevant urban agriculture initiatives, and signed agreements with key stakeholders. We selected the project sites based on availability and relevance to the student work. In 2019, we collaborated with the central municipal unit responsible for urban agriculture in Oslo, the Agency of Urban Environment, to identify District administrations actively involved in urban agriculture, and selected two of them as our partners. The students conducted their first case visit with a focus on the current situation of their case area (see Fig. 8.1 for a complete timeline). During their second visit in November, they organized workshops to develop a shared vision and documented it in their reports to the stakeholders. The workshops were held predominantly in English as groups included many international students. Our team conducted a total of seven workshops with a range in objectives and engagement modalities. In Table 8.1, we compiled essential information about these workshops.

Fig. 8.1

Timeline for the student work with the case studies. The process was the same both years, with different case studies. 2018: Case studies 1-5; 2019: Case studies 6 and 7.

Table 8.1 Overview of the case studies and their workshops

3 Case Locations

The following is a description of each of the urban agriculture communities we partnered with (see Fig. 8.2 for overview of their locations).

Fig. 8.2

Map of Oslo with the location of the cases. The individual cases from 2018 are marked with yellow pins; the district cases from 2019 are marked in blue and yellow borders. The red line marks the road Ring 2; the second of three ring roads in Oslo. Source: Google Earth

3.1 Case Study 1: Dr. Dedichens Drivhus and Trosterud Parsellhage

In 2015, a group of local enthusiasts reclaimed a large greenhouse (Drivhus) built by the municipality for vocational training in the former Dr. Dedichen’s Asylum. They formed an association, got a deal with Oslo municipality, the owner of the building and obtained funding for renting it from the District. The aim was to revitalize the greenhouse and create a place where people of all ages and cultures could meet, exchange knowledge, and promote integration of immigrants. Today, the greenhouse is run by volunteers with some financial support for events and equipment from different funding sources (for more in-depth information about this case, see Swensen et al., 2022). Its structure is similar to an allotment garden: members pay a small annual fee to have a table in the greenhouse at their disposal for cultivation in containers (see Picture 8.2). The association (Dr. Dedichens’ Green Square) collaborates with the neighbouring Trosterud allotment garden (Parsellhage in Norwegian; see Picture 8.3), which with new development plans would be relocated next to the greenhouse, making it an urban gardening park. This process was slow and frustrating for the people involved, and was a major area of focus for the student work.

Picture 8.2

Inside Dr. Dedichens’ greenhouse. Photo: Brooke Porter

Picture 8.3

Trosterud Parsellhage. Photo: Brooke Porter

3.2 Case Study 2: Ellingsrud Parsellhage

In 2016 a retired woman who wanted to do something for the neighbourhood in memory of her two deceased sons started an allotment garden. The garden, characterized by the lack of a fence, was created on a disused football field to the East of Oslo. At present, the place has grown to include 50 allotments, organized by a board led by the founder. The gardeners each have their “house” of eight pallet collars laid out in a H-shaped configuration (see Picture 8.4). The members include local residents, kindergartens, and primary schools in the area. These groups regularly host events, such as courses, barbecue dinner events, and festivals for special occasions.

Picture 8.4

The Ellingsrud allotment garden with its H-shaped lots during a fall event. Photo: Vebjørn Stafseng

3.3 Case Study 3: Losæter

Losæter was initiated by Bjørvika Utvikling on behalf of the landowners in the redevelopment district of Bjørvika, on the newly developed Oslo waterfront (see Picture 8.5). The name refers to the Norwegian term Sæter, a mountainous pasture where animals can graze in the summer season. It started as public art installation space, and was initiated by an artists’ collective. The initial 100 allotments that formed its structure in 2012 have since developed to include a grain field, and later a public community garden employing a full-time professional farmer. In 2016, the artists themselves designed a boat-shaped bakehouse at the barycentre of the site. Today, the community garden is managed by Bybonden, a full-time urban farmer hired by the municipality. The Bybonden’s tasks include giving courses, organizing volunteers and hosting a variety of visitors, from foreign journalists to local kindergarten children. Amongst the volunteers are organizations who work on topics of interest to the place, passers-by and other neighbours.

Picture 8.5

The social area of Losæter surrounded by vegetable fields, apartment blocks, with the Munch museum in the background. Photo: Brooke Porter

Picture 8.6

Voksenenga with its garden, outdoor kitchen and geodome greenhouse in the summer. Photo: Katinka Evensen

Picture 8.7

Schous square in front of the library, with cultivated beds in the foreground. Photo: Troels Rosenkrantz Fuglsang

3.4 Case Study 4: Voksenenga Nærmiljøhage

Voksenenga Nærmiljøhage (community garden) was ideated in 2016 by a landscape architect living in the area, the northwest end of Oslo. In partnership with the local district administration and church, the initiator received funding from a private foundation to start the project but has had no steady income to cover expenses (such as a full-time project manager). The garden comprises of an area with allotments, an area for community gardening, an outdoor kitchen, a tool shed, a chicken coop and social areas with tables and benches (see Picture 8.6). Over the growing season, the garden organizes many activities for residents, participants in the community garden, and allotment holders. They employ youth and have a garden club summer camp for children. Funding for these activities comes from district, municipal and national sources.

3.5 Case Study 5: På Schous

The På Schous urban agriculture opened in 2018 thanks to a collaboration between the Grünerløkka District in and the local library. The project encompassed the cultivation of vegetables in beds on the square outside the library (see Picture 8.7) and vocational training for local youth that involved food cultivation, park maintenance and café work. An essential activity was the hosting of dinners where the employed youth, in collaboration with professional chefs cooked dinner for district residents. They used surplus food from stores, bakeries and restaurants in the area and vegetables from the garden to prepare the meals. The project employed hundreds of youths in the summer, and retained some of them for year-round positions. The work included tending to vegetable plants in the various beds around the district and maintaining parks and public spaces managed by the district.

3.6 Case Studies 6 and 7: The Districts of Gamle Oslo and Grünerløkka

In 2019 our research focus became the municipality’s role in urban agriculture development in Oslo (see also the discussion in Chaps. 11 and 12). The Agency for Urban Environment is the office in Oslo municipality responsible for urban development and planning, but much of the local decision-making is the purview of 15 municipal districts. Our team collaborated with the districts of Gamle Oslo (Old Oslo) and Grünerløkka both located by the city centre. In recent years, these districts have taken an active role in the development of urban agriculture, supporting projects by local actors and neighbourhood groups.

The findings used in this chapter originate from seven reports written by first-year graduate students in the Agroecology programme at NMBU to synthesize the activities that took place between 2018 and 2019.³ As course instructors, the authors were involved in the planning and execution of the field work; some also participated in the workshops conducted by the students. Thus, our impressions and experiences from the process also play a role in the interpretation of the results. We used NVivo software to analyze the reports by coding them for the overall categories: visions, supporting and hindering forces and action plans. We finally grouped the codes in common categories and themes.

4 Findings: Visions of Resource Cycling and Empowerment

Figure 8.3, illustrates that the visions of urban agriculture in public space involve elements of nature, the social and governance. To reach them urban gardeners must overcome common hindering forces, most importantly, nonfunctioning collaboration and limited financial and time resources. Support from higher political bodies and increased general interest in urban agriculture are forces that can support their efforts. Action steps that can help propel their vision relate to the municipality, food, organization, ecology, social improvements and education. In the following sections, we dive deeper into these categories.

Fig. 8.3

Key characteristics of urban agriculture visions in Oslo (in bold), challenges for improvement (in red), supporting forces for improvement (in green) and areas of suggested action (in italics)

Our analysis of the student reports found three main categories that capture the essence of the visions developed in the seven case studies. These are (1) nature and (2) societal and individual goods of various forms, a category we have termed the social. Further, an overarching vision is related to (3) governance of the initiatives, to ensure their development and resilience (see Fig. 8.4). Below we elaborate on these categories and illustrate with examples from the visions.

Fig. 8.4

Three categories of a vision of urban agriculture in Oslo

4.1 Social

Visions that relate to the social can be both individual and collective. Well-being is primarily individual-oriented, societal changes are mostly collective and education and empowerment have elements of both.

At Ellingsrud, part of the vision is to promote well-being, health and access to nature. In Grünerløkka, well-being is prominent in how urban agriculture can create healthy, aesthetically pleasing, safe and green spaces to elevate the health and interactions of the local community. To be active and in harmony with nature amongst a diversity of trees and plants can put the mind and body at ease and improve one’s physical and mental state. In addition, creating a safe, well-designed public space through urban agriculture promotes social interaction between generations and between people with different ethnic and economic backgrounds (Grünerløkka report 2019). Overall, increased social interaction can contribute to a neighborhood’s collective well-being. In a district challenged for many years by petty crime and substance abuse in public space, introducing urban agriculture elements could be particularly valuable in ongoing efforts to improve the situation. Year-round activities could help fight degradation and consistently sustain people’s well-being.

In Trosterud and Ellingsrud, there is a desire to design social, open and inclusive areas and to involve the community in the process. The proposal includes the establishment of an outdoor kitchen and the organization of various volunteer activities. These initiatives aim to transform public spaces into hubs for urban food production and multifunctional activities. The envisioned community kitchens and meeting places will serve as arenas for social interaction and learning, fostering a sense of inclusivity by bringing together people from diverse backgrounds.

Education, both formal and informal, is another theme that recur in the visions and include the educational effects on the general population, kindergarteners, and pupils from schools of all levels. For the Gamle Oslo district, a part of the vision is a better connection to food; it includes a deep understanding of the importance of nutrition and genuine care for community resilience, personal health and education. Ellingsrud’s vision targets education and sustainable development knowledge-sharing across generations. Finally, in the Grünerløkka, the focus is on food production education, and the re-envisioning of school- and kindergarten environments to include gardening lessons and practice.

As an effect of education and a prerequisite for societal change, the visions of urban agriculture include empowerment of participants. This can be seen both as a collective and an individual theme. As a collective theme, the focus is on how people can unite, self-organize, and host various events. From an individual point of view, empowerment means to provide space for personal development, and a place to teach, learn and evolve.

The theme of societal change encompasses all the elements of the visions where the initiative contributes to change society. This can include making participants of the initiative aware of problematic situations and providing them with tools to contribute to changing them. The Gamle Oslo district vision consists of using urban agriculture as a platform for an alternative sharing-economy. The ultimate goal is to work so that “human connections and sustainability will be valued over accumulation of physical possessions and the striving for socio-economic status” (Gamle Oslo report 2019). Similarly, the larger context of the vision for På Schous is that the project will contribute to environmental consciousness and foster noncommercial networks (På Schous report 2018).

4.2 Nature

Another essential part of the vision for urban agriculture is its contribution to urban ecology. The first subcategory under Nature is biodiversity, and there are various elements that contribute to it. For Trosterud, student visions suggested the introduction of beehives, ponds, ecological pathways, and apple trees. In the Ellingsrud, the vision promoted biodiversity and natural cycles. For Grünerløkka, the vision included buildings with hanging gardens with climbing plants, green rooftops, fruit trees, insects, pollinators and greenhouses with edible and non-edible plants to increase biodiversity in public space, making it more aesthetically rich and attractive to the community.

The visions include resource cycling to make the most of the urban resources and fulfill the role of urban agriculture in this context. This consists of the improvement of water systems to make better use of this scarce resource, and bringing nutrients back to the soil in a closed-loop system using compost, as in the case of Losæter and Bydel Grünerløkka: “There are closed loop systems for food production. People are selling and buying local food. Soils and nutrients from the waste are brought back to the ecosystem and there is composting in every food production site” (Grünerløkka report 2019).

4.3 Governance: Initiative Sustainability

Governance is an overarching theme for the visions and a prerequisite for the existence and healthy functioning of the initiatives. We define governance as “an analytical framework to identify different governance structures and governance practices within these structures with regard to the socio-political and spatial regulation of urban gardening” (Fox-Kamper et al., 2018, p. 60). This includes both internal governance in the initiatives and the structures given by the municipality or the state.

The central theme of collaboration and network covers how initiatives will connect to other initiatives, the municipality, the district, the private sector, and other relevant actors. In Gamle Oslo they seek tight collaboration between the public and private sectors, NGOs, academic institutions and citizen/volunteer groups. This implies a high level of communication as well as participatory, inclusive planning and decision-making processes.

Another subtheme is recognition from government and population. One example of this is Gamle Oslo, a district whose vision includes urban agriculture as a civic priority: “a fundamental element is that all levels of society, including the various public institutions, genuinely consider urban agriculture as an essential component of city dwellers well-being” (Gamle Oslo report 2019). The final subtheme we identified is support and funding that initiatives in the visions are supported and have sufficient funding: “There are funds for the urban agriculture initiatives and circular economy activities. The urban agriculture initiatives have employed experts from the Oslo municipality and district who are helping to manage the public parks’ projects” (Grünerløkka report 2019).

In this section, we identify forces that could either hinder or propel the visions. One reccurring force for reaching the visions is the support coming from the higher political bodies. This includes the municipal, district, and state government levels. This support comes from funding schemes, goodwill in managing the bureaucracy and promoting new initiatives. In their report for Losæter the students share this perception of the municipality: “Having spoken to Oslo Kommune it is clear that there is municipal interest in the proposed changes as they are in line with the city’s desire for a transition to a more sustainable future” (Losæter report 2018).

Interest in urban agriculture, is a growing trend attracting also media attention. The students report a sense of urgency, especially amongst the younger members of the population. In addition, it has become ever more popular in new housing developments to include and advertise access to rooftop gardens or gardening spaces as amenities for potential buyers. With greater political support, unused urban spaces in the neighbourhoods could also become gardening projects.

Finally, some of the identified supporting forces are specific to certain initiatives. Densely populated neighbourhoods have “an advantage as there are more people who may be interested in urban agriculture projects and there is the potential for a large pool of capable volunteers and project initiators” (Gamle Oslo report 2019). In the case of both Voksenenga and Losæter, students found evidence of a high number of members and their networks and considered these to be strengths for the implementation of their future visions. At På Schous, the partnership between the involved organizers could be instrumental to support future urban agriculture development.

In the students’ reports, collaboration appears as a hindering force operating in two ways. One way the collaboration between initiatives and the municipal government can be an obstacle is visible in the uncertain timeframe of initiatives and in the zoning and regulation and fragmented bureaucracy. Fragmented bureaucracy may occur when several agencies are responsible for various parts of an urban agriculture initiative. Zoning and regulation are hindering forces to the Losæter vision, as it will be challenging to irrigate with grey water and cultivate the walls of a concrete ventilation tower. In addition, the vision of the På Schous is not aligned with the current zoning plans for the square, and this needs to be dealt with to achieve the vision. A second way in which collaboration may be hindering involves the private sector. The Gamle Oslo report puts it clearly: “the private sector is not always willing to actively contribute without having an immediate perceived benefit” (2019).

Two elements seem to hinder the visions when they are either in shortage or absent: funding for expenses and time for involvement amongst the various participants of an initiative. Expenses can include materials for building new structures and labor for short-term and long-term project coordination and maintenance. This time-related challenge is visible in community gardens like Voksenenga, where the vision entails involvement from the members who “have busy lives and other responsibilities” (Voksenenga report 2018). In Gamle Oslo, the demographic with an above-average low-income population is key to participation in urban gardening as “availability of time is a luxury and participating in urban food initiatives may not be a priority” (Gamle Oslo report 2019). When the vision is to have diverse participants, gentrification and population turnover are real challenges. They can lead to more homogenous and less socially stable community identities. As for the supporting or hindering forces, these may be specific to certain initiatives but likely to apply to several others. This is the case of aesthetics, mentioned in the Losæter report. Some improvements, like a new irrigation system, could help to make the sites more manageable, but would not fit in with the place’s aesthetics. When the vision is to create a community, individualism is a challenge: “people often lack the personal relationships necessary to be a part of a greater community” (Gamle Oslo report 2019).

These supporting and hindering forces contribute to the action steps suggested to further the visions. In the following section, we have identified six categories of action steps that benefit the development of urban agriculture initiatives in public spaces.

4.4 Ecological

Urban agriculture should integrate closed-loop systems involving compost, composting toilets and food forest initiatives to promote nutrient cycling. Related to this, designers and planners can achieve increased biodiversity through the establishment of ecological corridors, to increase both the number of habitats afforded and the presence of edible landscapes. At both Dr. Dedichens’ greenhouse and Schous, an action step is to establish a seed library “by obtaining, organizing and storing seed, in order to encourage resource sharing and increase biodiversity” (Dr. Dedichens’ report 2018). Finally, we also suggest introducing systems for irrigation, including instalment of rainwater catchment systems, and diversionary swales in Dr. Dedichens’ greenhouse and Losæter.

4.5 Education

Related to educational dimension of urban agriculture, the students suggest establishing a mini book-swap box in Trosterud’s garden. This also has the potential effect to open the gardens to people who are less interested in the gardening but like reading. Additionally, students present ideas for facilitating education around urban agriculture and propose to integrate urban agriculture in the educational system. This could be achieved through contributions to a new curriculum in local schools and includes cultivation in collaboration with the Ellingsrud garden members. To this end, parents should be involved in the process to gain support for the initiative (Ellingsrud report 2018). The idea of integrating urban agriculture into the educational system is also elaborated in the Grünerløkka report. This report focuses on the concept of “garden-based learning” (from Desmond et al., 2004) and aims to have urban gardens available for all schools in Oslo.

4.6 Food

Under the food category, we locate two subcategories of actions: grow more food and strengthen local (food) consumption. The first is based on the insight that for most urban agriculture initiatives, food production is not the primary motivation, and thus, that there is growth potential (Schous report). To achieve the latter, students suggested revitalizing food preservation techniques through workshops and involve people knowledgeable in the subject (Grünerløkka report) and, setting up alternative distribution systems for local food (Gamle Oslo report).

4.7 Organization

Actions to improve and better organize initiatives include building partnerships through workshops and food (or other) events as “opportunity for people to learn, spend time together and share their knowledge and experiences. In addition, these social and educational events could increase people’s interest in joining the garden” (Ellingsrud report 2018). In the Voksenenga report, the students argue that more workshops “would accomplish one of the garden’s higher goals of ‘empowering members and the community through education and skill building’” (Voksenenga report 2018). This group also suggests adopting a care farm model inspired by the Green Care concept for the provision of welfare services on farms⁴: “This practice could be an opportunity to build and promote the recognition of the garden, and ultimately strengthen its relationship with the community”. The Schous report focuses on how this initiative can become an urban agriculture hub by developing a website and organizing a festival. These actions “would position PÅ Schous as a hub for urban agriculture in Oslo. In addition, an urban agriculture festival can promote and boost urban agriculture and develop a strong network of actors in Oslo” (På Schous report 2018).

An action point that reoccurs in the reports is establishing work groups to organize the members and volunteers. This includes obtaining an overview of volunteers’ skills, improving functionality of task and responsibility distribution, and fostering member empowerment. A hope is that this will help both with how the garden functions and to sustain volunteer and member motivation. Communication is also an essential action point. Some of the reports suggest having a stronger social media presence, creating or improving websites, and promoting the garden in other ways. These action points refer mainly to external communication. In contrast, the Ellingsrud report also stresses the need to enhance communication within groups to counteract existing weaknesses like ‘Low sense of ownership’ and ‘Low motivation for a bigger cause’ through the creation of a garden manual.

4.8 Social

Based on the insight that positive social outcomes rely in part on a garden’s physical design and structures, a suggested action step is to create social spaces. In the Losæter report, the students suggest ways to improve visitors’ experience through clear entrances to the garden, wayfinding and signage. At Trosterud, the student group focused on creating a social space, including a barbeque and outdoor kitchen area to include the larger community.

4.9 Municipality

The final category is the municipality, and what they can do to help urban agriculture initiatives succeed. Some of the suggested action points relate to citizen engagement. An important thing the municipality can do is to engage citizens in policy-making related to urban agriculture and food issues, for instance, by creating a non-governmental Urban Agriculture Food Policy Council (Gamle Oslo report 2019). Such a council could include “gardeners and farmers, project leaders, organizational representatives, city officials, citizens and other players” (Gamle Oslo report 2019), foster collaboration between the various actors, and make policy more grounded. Municipalities should encourage platforms to valuate time as an exchangeable resource⁵ and that urban agriculture activities are included.

Lastly, the two groups who worked with municipalities suggested expanding municipal support. This could be in the form of added and longer-term funding opportunities for initiatives, or an improved extension/advising service for urban agriculture (inspired by the extension service in traditional agriculture). Additionally, we suggest expanding and improving websites and apps with information about urban agriculture and maps of urban agriculture initiatives in the city. Another suggested action point is that the municipality should think more about their resources in terms of buildings and areas and that they can facilitate multipurpose use of these resources. One example is the “Oslonøkkelen”⁶ [translated ‘The key to Oslo’] to “offer access to public facilities outside of office-hours” (Gamle Oslo report 2019).

5 Discussion: What Are the Key Characteristics of Urban Agriculture Visions in Oslo?

Through an action-oriented inquiry into urban agriculture initiatives in Oslo, our team of students and faculty gained valuable insights into what urban agriculture is, and what it means to the stakeholders we involved. Through co-creation, we generated three types of visions catering to the social, nature and governance. The social has elements of both collective and individual focus. In the visions, the urban individual can flourish, develop, feel a sense of belonging and access places that encourage interaction with fellow citizens. The collective aspects of the visions involve changes in education and making citizens aware of issues and their unique social and nature-related character at both a local and global scale. The visions also offer tools to tackle such problems and improve the situation.

5.1 Visions vs. Motivations

These findings align with the interviews with project leaders and coordinators in Chap. 6, which revealed that their main motivations are to create social meeting places and educational arenas, to activate public spaces and to empower the citizens (Chap. 6). Our findings expand on these categories, both in terms of method (through the inclusion of urban agriculture participants as well as other stakeholders) and in the detail and description of the elements of these categories. In the workshops, participants were encouraged to be very concrete about the future they desired, and give a detailed picture of what they envisioned. Their motivations, and visions tell us something about what desires individuals have for urban agriculture in the future and what positive benefits could come from such initiatives.

Under the social category, we find the themes of well-being, empowerment, education and societal change. These can be seen in relation to the other findings of Chap. 6. When we analysed the findings through the lens of the capability approach (see Chap. 2, Chap. 6 and Nussbaum, 2011, p. 33–34). We witnessed how participation in urban agriculture can improve the capability affiliation. Participants reported seeing the gardens as a place to meet new people and feeling a sense of community belonging. In our case, we can say that the vision of well-being, including, for instance, a promotion of interaction between generations and all-year-round activities, relates to the capability of affiliation. Similarly, well-being also includes being in harmony with nature for improved mental and physical heath, which corresponds to the capabilities of other species, bodily health and emotions, senses and thought. Education and empowerment relate to the capabilities control over one’s environment and practical reason.

The distinction between the individual and the collective might be misleading when seen in relation to capabilities. According to Nussbaum, “capabilities belong first and foremost to individual persons, and only derivatively to groups” (2011, p. 35). As such, the approach seems to be most relevant in the context of individual well-being. However, when we look more closely, the collective and the individual are not opposites but complement each other. When individuals come together around an issue and have a desire to bring about change in their surroundings they align with the capabilities of control over one’s environment in a political sense and practical reason. According to Nussbaum, this is about “being able to participate effectively in political choices that govern one’s life” (Nussbaum, 2011, p. 34). Thus, the focus is on the individual, yet the effects will be visible on a community scale when several individuals unite and participate in a shared political act.

The subcategory of governance represents a twofold concept. One way to see this is through internal organization of each urban agriculture initiative. We found collaboration and networking to prevail in the visions. Initiatives collaborate fruitfully with each other and involve volunteers, the public and the private sector. All the initiatives inescapably must relate to municipal governance. How a municipality facilitates urban agriculture, be it through active strategies and funding opportunities or as through their authority to approve zoning of urban agriculture, will impact the development of the initiatives. This relates to findings in Chap. 12, where Oslo municipality serves as a case study of institutionalization of urban agriculture and its impact on policy. Oslo has come far in the institutionalization of urban agriculture, having incorporated it in the municipal plan and in strategic documents (see Chap. 12). Unlike Bergen and Trondheim, Oslo has a strong political involvement in urban agriculture, which makes it a top-down effort. The visions do not specifically address which type of municipal governance is needed, but call for recognition and support, in addition to networking and collaboration. In accordance with Chap. 12, it becomes apparent that the visions embody a blend of the “Oslo model” (with its emphasis on recognition and support) and the “Trondheim model” (with focus on networks and collaboration). This raises an intriguing question: to what extent these models harmoniously coexist and complement each other?

5.2 Reflections on Our Method

This paper used and analyzed data from students’ written reports and observations as a source of urban agriculture knowledge. This adds one degree of separation from the field, and possibly limits the scope of our research. For this reason, we chose a focus on co-production between students and stakeholders and an analysis of the products of these interactions. Integrating the perspective of students and stakeholders gave us access to new and visionary thoughts and ideas, which are necessary and indeed needed in urban agriculture research.

According to Wiek and Iwaniec (2014), visionary thinking is a good tool for working with change processes. Yet, our team has experienced people’s reluctance to participate in the visioning process. In one of the case studies, the students encountered the coordinators’ resistance to developing a clear vision, and a preference to keep the future open and “organically” adapt and evolve. In their minds, a clear vision could prevent the unexpected and unplanned. We argue that this open-endedness is also a vision, and that they could still benefit from a visioning workshop, both as an educational experience and as a forum for an open dialogue on the future.

In a visionary thinking exercise, participants think creatively about the future. In contrast to semi-structured interviews and participant observation, visioning is an active, action-oriented, and participatory process. The participants are encouraged to contribute with their ideas and visions for the future, rather than just share experiences and facts. Egmose et al. (2020) argue that this relates to democracy: “it is by democratizing the ways by which new insights emerge that research can make substantial contributions to broader societal democratizations” (p. 234). In this study, we did not collect scientific data on participants’s perceptions of the visioning workshops, except for informal conversations with project coordinators. Future research should gather these perceptions through interviews, focus groups or surveys preceding the workshops. Such activities would provide insights into the second aim of student action learning: positive change in the initiatives. From a pedagogical point of view, further research should also provide more knowledge of student learning as a result of their participation in these kinds of project.

6 Conclusions: Competing Visions of Urban Agriculture in Public Space?

To imagine means to transcend existing thought and, as a result, cultivate the capacity to seek completely new solutions. We propose that in the development from a known past to an unknown future, where sustainability is at stake, this visionary thinking competences will be vital. This action research endeavour involved students and urban agriculture stakeholders to help achieve integration of urban agriculture in public spaces. The students planned and organized the visioning workshops and summarized their outcomes in the reports. We analyzed these documents to find the key characteristics of the cocreated visions, the supporting forces and challenges and the suggested action steps. Our findings predominantly align with prior research done on motivations for urban agriculture and the quality of participants’ experiences. One category that stands out more in the visions than in the findings of motivations in Chap. 6 is the greater focus on ecological benefits of urban agriculture, including food production. Our study’s visionary aspect is that it revealed what people would really like urban agriculture to be. It is about advancing social and economic benefits and food production, but these goals are challenging to achieve. Another explanation could be the added perspectives in our study, where a diverse group of stakeholders have been involved in making the visions. Might there be a difference in the motivations and desires of project leaders vs. those of the residents and community participants? More research is needed to fully answer these questions.

Appendix 1: List of Unpublished Student Reports

Bhérer-Breton, P., Buckley, R., Liegmann, L., & Nair, M. (2018). Urban agriculture in Oslo – The study case of Voksenenga Naermiljøhage [Unpublished student report]. Norwegian University of Life Sciences.

Blindheim, M., Conrotte, M., Durand, A., Hnatiuk, S., & Neault, A. (2019). A vision of urban agriculture in Gamle Oslo – A case study as part of the course PAE302 action learning in farming and food systems [Unpublished student report]. Norwegian University of Life Sciences.

Brennsæter, J., Lang, K., Chopin, L., D’orazio, M., & Giraud, N. (2018). Ellingsrud Parsellhage stakeholder document [Unpublished student report]. Norwegian University of Life Sciences.

Genneper, R., Attard, P., Demavivas, C., Karuga, J., & Brumer, A. (2019). The future of urban agriculture in Oslo – A case study on Grünerløkka district [Report, unpublished]. Norwegian University of Life Sciences.

Kapalla, D., Fausko, M., Brannan, T., & Vernier, T. (2018). PÅ Schous – Growing the community through food [Unpublished student report]. Norwegian University of Life Sciences.

Lunder, O. E., Porter, B., Asieduwaa, G. A., & Homulle, Z. (2018). PAE302 Food Case Document: The cross pollination of Dr. Dedichens Drivhus and Trosterud Parsellhage [Unpublished student report]. Norwegian University of Life Sciences.

Western, B., Schillinger, M., Reid, E., Faury, A., & Colbert, E. (2018). Roots of urban change: Climate and community adaptation in water and social systems (Losæter report) [Unpublished student report]. Norwegian University of Life Sciences.